Posted on 03/23/2009 7:21:08 AM PDT by BGHater
Phil Tetlock and Barbara Mellers were in a race against time to save their 15-year-old daughter, Jenny. As I reported last summer, Jenny developed a degenerative muscle disease nearly two years ago, soon after being vaccinated against the cervical-cancer-causing HPV. She became nearly completely paralyzed, though her mind was perfectly intact and she could still enjoy her pet parakeet, Hannah Montana, and Twilight.
I've been E-mailing Phil regularly over the past year, and up until our last E-mail, one week ago, he had been holding out hope that they would be able to find a cure for his daughter—or to at least determine if the human papillomavirus vaccine called Gardasil had caused his daughter's illness, most likely a juvenile form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (aka Lou Gehrig's disease). Sadly, the clock ran out last Sunday, and Jenny passed away.
Through their efforts to publicize Jenny's case on their blog, Jenny's parents have connected with two other sets of parents whose daughters developed what appears to be ALS after being injected with Gardasil. One was 22-year-old Whitney Baird, who died last August, just 13 months after receiving Gardasil. Another is Alicia Olund, a 12-year-old who began having trouble walking after getting her third shot last September. She now uses leg braces and a walker at home as her muscles continue to deteriorate. After ruling out other conditions, her specialists at the University of California-San Francisco Medical Center—who also treated Jenny—suspect that Alicia may have the same condition. "They don't know what she has," her mother, Barbara, tells me through tears, "but it's destroying her nerves and muscles, and none of the treatments they've given her are working. Before the vaccine, she was a perfectly healthy child, going for her brown belt in karate." (They're awaiting the results of the ALS test.)
I should point out that juvenile ALS is extremely rare, affecting just 1 in 2 million young people. It's impossible to say at this point whether these girls would have developed the condition regardless of whether they received Gardasil, but government officials—who still strongly maintain that the vaccine is perfectly safe and potentially lifesaving—are now starting to investigate. Scientists from the Food and Drug Administration met recently with Jenny's neurologists at UCSF to discuss whether it's scientifically plausible for a vaccine to trigger ALS. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning to scour its adverse-event database, called VAERS, to see whether other vaccinations have led to reports of ALS or other severe neurological complications.
Turns out, warnings concerning ALS and vaccines have been raised before. John Iskander, the CDC's associate director for immunization safety, tells me the agency previously has received reports of ALS following the anthrax vaccine. This, in addition to the deaths of Jenny and Whitney, "kind of tells us that we need to look more broadly at this issue," he says. He's quick to add that "we're doing just an initial review at this point; we don't have suspicions that these are casually related."
Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil, maintains that its vaccine is extremely safe and points out that it could potentially save women from dying of cervical cancer. "There are unusual and rare diseases that occur in girls and women in this age group whether they're vaccinated or not," says Rick Haupt, Merck's head of the clinical program for Gardasil. "These patterns don't indicate any causality." He says no cases of ALS occurred in Merck's clinical trials but also admits that the trials—which included thousands, not millions—weren't large enough to detect such rare diseases.
Barbara Shapiro, an ALS expert and associate professor of neurology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine who was enlisted by a mutual friend to help the Tetlocks do their research, isn't ready to dismiss the cases as pure coincidence. She's pored over the medical records of Jenny, Whitney, and Alicia and sees a striking similarity. "Juvenile ALS tends to progress very slowly over years or even decades, but these girls all seemed to have a more rapid, progressive form." She also has uncovered another VAERS report in the CDC database that could be similar, but since it was filed by a pharmacist, the CDC told her it doesn't have details on the girl's identity. Shapiro worries that there may be more cases out there that the CDC doesn't know about.
After all, she tells me, both Whitney and Alicia came to the CDC's attention only after their parents discovered Jenny's blog and Phil Tetlock urged them to file a VAERS report. This system of voluntary reporting of adverse events related to vaccines by doctors and patients is notoriously crude. All too often, adverse events go unreported, whereas many reports that are filed turn out not to be related at all to the vaccines. When I point this out to Iskander, he tells me that while VAERS certainly isn't perfect, it's pretty good at catching rare events.
But what if doctors wouldn ' t think to link the onset of ALS with a vaccination? I press him. "Reports in the media, such as the one you're doing, are a good trigger to get doctors to file reports," he responds. In fact, largely because of media attention, reports of adverse events for Gardasil are about five times as high as the overall average for any vaccine, he adds. So I suppose he's hoping that if there are other girls out there who developed severe physical disabilities after receiving Gardasil, they'll soon be entered into the VAERS database.
Still, I'm troubled by the complexities of all of this. How will the CDC ever be able to know whether there's a true connection between Gardasil and ALS if this disease is so rare? And just how much evidence is needed? Iskander tells me he doesn't make that decision but passes on all the information he has to the government's vaccine working group, which makes recommendations about the national immunization schedule. "They are aware of these cases and that we've started discussions with neurologists and immunologists to determine if there are mechanisms that could explain how a vaccine could cause ALS," Iskander says, adding that "I haven't heard a good answer yet from these experts" when it comes to explaining a mechanism.
Shapiro says her suspicions are raised enough that she's decided not to give her own 11-year-old daughter the Gardasil vaccine. "Let's say it causes just one or two cases of ALS every year out of a million doses that are given. What if your daughter is the one?"
I haven't decided yet whether I want to have my own teenage daughter vaccinated. The arguments for Gardasil are compelling: It protects against viruses responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancers, which still kill many women in this country. Since the vaccine is so new, until more evidence emerges I think it may be prudent for concerned parents to consider holding off until their daughters reach the verge of sexual activity.
Particularly when we have an enemedia culture pushing the notion that people are no different from Tom Cats and anyone who behaves differently is abnormal.
But there was a time in the not so distant past when what my wife and I did was perfectly normal. And, so far, we're batting 1.000 with our three daughters and one son-in-law, the youngest of whom turns 20 next month.
Last week I saw an ad for it. I wanted to throw something at the TV. Not a single mention of the fact that HPV is an STD, just that some HPVs can cause cervical cancer.
so a cervix isn’t a prerequisite, i assume?
I believe this has something to do with the cell types lining the cervical area...which is easier for the tumor cell to take hold. 90% of cervical cancers are squamous cell carcinomas, which are slow growing malignant tumors found in lungs and skin, and also occuring in the anus, cervix, larynx, nose, and bladder. Apparently the disease does not hit the men’s pelvic area the same way it does ours, to cause cancer.
I am also a mother of a 14 year old daughter. I took her to get the vaccine last year. I was worried that even if she did abstain, her eventual marriage partner might not.
CJ is a physician, which is why i pinged him to answer the question as to whether the vaccine would be effective in males. I am the mother of 14 and 20 yo females. my 20 yo turned it down on her own, at the gynecologist, as we had fully discussed it. i declined it on behalf of my 14 yo. we are not ignorant, my husband and i are both lawyers, we are informed.
I'm saying that the danger posed by cervical cancer is perhaps not large enough to justify the risk taken by getting the vaccine. I have no daughters and people need to make their own risk assessment.
Perhaps we'd be better off spending the money on defensive driving courses for our teens, or on looking for safer alternatives to aspirin.
Thanks for your response. I too got informed, and weighed it out. I gave my daughter the option to decline, while informing her of the skyrocketting cervical cancer rates.
I let her make the decision and she had my full support. I pray every day, that it was the right decision, on both our parts.
It takes good parents to stay informed, and too keep their kids informed.
Kudos!
as gabz pointed out, the only real problem with this is the mandatory road they want to go down. it should be up people to make informed decisions on these sorts of things. by the time my daughters are ready to become sexually active, perhaps there will have been progress made in vaccinating male carriers of the organism, as well.
It’s only approved in females ages 11-26. It’s in Phase III trials in boys. The consequences of HPV infection are much more severe in women - cervical or vulvar cancers. Uncircumcised males can develop squamous cell cancer of the penis, but much later in life than women develop cervical cancer. Squamous cell cancer of the anus can occur in both men and women, but more commonly in HIV-infected individuals.
Someone mentioned oral-pharyngeal cancer earlier. That can occur in both males and females regardless of smoking or dipping history, or HIV status.
I think you may have this backwards. It is Girls who only have sex with male virgins and/or males who only have had sex with virgins and/or have only had sex with vaccinated girls have no need to get it.
The rates for new cervical cancer cases (incidence) have decreased steadily across multiple racial and ethnic groups, as follows:
3.6% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among all women.
3.5% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among white women.
5.0% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among African-American women.
5.3% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among Asian/Pacific Islander women.
4.2% decrease per year from 1996 to 2005 among Hispanic women.
And that is exactly the point. There was talk here in Arkansas soon after this vaccination was introduced, about adding it to the required vaccinations for students in school (female, of course). There was a good bit of outrage at even suggesting it.
I, for one, am also adamantly against mandating this shot, and while I can understand the stated purpose of vaccinating teen girls, I look at this as just another case of "give 'em condoms - cause they are gonna DO IT anyway" mentality.
I find it so interesting that you rarely hear exactly what kind of bug this vaccination is designed to prevent... it is a virus that is transmitted nearly completely by... drum roll please.... sexual contact with an infected partner.
While I do not wish death or serious illness on ANYONE, we also need to remember that there is a cost to every decision we make, regardless of that age.
Since childbirth is also a danger to a teen girl's health, we might as well start mandating regular dosing of RU-482 as well... would sure cut down the teen pregnancy rate, thus saving lives, preventing unwanted and "unnecessary" pregnancies, and would save $billions in taxes.
And while we are on the subject of government-mandated health issues. How about we immediately begin weighing school children. Those who are judged to be in danger of obesity, or are obese - lets put them on a regimented diet plan. If they fail to shed the extra pounds, then take them from their families and put them in fat schools where the children will live, exercise, and get their indoctrin....uh.... education. When the child gets down to the government determined "normal" weight, they will get supervised home visits with their families. Only after it is determined that the parents are not likely to fatten the children back up can they move back in. But agents.....errr.... social workers will closely monitor the child for any sudden weight gain.
And then we can take the next logical step. We should go ahead and separate the "special" students into their own environment. Those who show that they can still perform some form of menial productive task for society will be trained to do those specific jobs. Those who are ruled to be unable to contribute to society - will be euthan.....errrr.... taken care of in a special facility. Because all who consume must contribute to the collective...errr......ummm.... should contribute cheerfully to the well-being of society.
Obviously this post is full of hyperbolic sarcastic idiocy (to put it nicely) - yet why is it that some are so willing to jump on every government suggested bandwagon for the "good of the children"? I can't help but think that Adolf Hitler used similar ideas to get the people to swallow his "perfect master race" scheme. He didn't just one day say - OK - death to all Jews and any others we deem inferior, death to mentally handicapped, mandatory testing before you can have children. Those with superior characteristics will be expected to have many children - all for the good of Mother Germany. NO - just like any psychopathic plan that should otherwise outrage an even moderately reasonable human - it is implemented in chunks, bits, and pieces. All with a seemingly reasonable goal or purpose stated.
How about the government go away and let parents raise their children. Hold people to high expectations, and hold them responsible for their decisions. If a parent chooses to have their daughter given this injection - then that parent should also be aware of the consequences of that decision.
According to Gardasil's own web-site, it prevents only 2 of the 30-40 varieties of HPV that cause cancer. And those 2 constitute 70% of cancer-causing HPV. There is still another 30% of cancer-causing HPV that goes unprotected, and I guarantee that with increasing pressure to get this vaccine that percentage will increase as viruses mutate (as all living things do) because they want to survive.
The other 2 that it protects against cause genital warts, and while I admit having genital warts is not a pleasant circumstance it hardly compares to the life-threatening specter of cancer. Oh, and by the way, this is a vaccine (which acts by stimulating the body to produce antibodies to a particular virus). Therefore, if a girl has already been sexually active and has acquired the virus, Gardasil is useless. Which, to be fair, is clearly stated in their TV advertisements if anyone cares to pay close enough attention.
So, in all likelihood we will end up with the same unintended consequences of most liberal theories, and that is a false sense of security and an increase in the risky behavior. I fear we will never learn.
This is interesting because I was told this past Oct by both my medical insurance and a dr. of gynecolgy/oncology that cervical cancer is still on the rise....the conversations with these individuals had nothing to do with the vaccine however.
Thanks for the info.
I suspect those pushing this government program to see all girls vaccinated are pushing this as a “woman’s issue” to stifle debate. Men can get cancer from HPV too (testicular cancer, throat cancer) and can be carriers of HPV which would then infect non-vaccinated women.
I’m sorry if I come across harshly to you.
Last time I suggested that not everyone is a virgin before marraige (indicating the husband if not the wife) a Freeper told me I must be raising whores. I mean that word specifically.
So I apologize to you.
Yes only young men want sex. The hormones are running wild on both sides in the teenage years.
The incidence of HPV seems to be on the rise. The incidence of PRE-cancer may be on the rise (no one says). But cervical cancer is declining because doctors are doing a better job catching pre-cancerous changes through pap smears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.